Taking A Step Back

After I read something that really moves me, I like to wait a while and then go read an opposing viewpoint. So I went online and read some very harsh words about Adam McKay's blog entry.

A lot of people felt it was a bunch of B.S. -- A very leftist, slanted view of feeling sorry for one's self on a fair playing field. And I can see why. It's a lot to swallow.

And although I tend to agree with what he said -- that the media conglomerates (not the individual reporters themselves) are generally self-interested and thus looking to maximize profit and increase ratings, and that this makes a close election out of what should be a landslide on account of a referendum on the Bush years (something we heard in 2004, but not as much in 2008) -- I'd like to look at it from another angle.

OK, so let's take a step back. Can we all at least agree on something? I'm going to throw this out here:

I'm not saying that the media is favoring the left or the right for now. I'm just gonna say that in a national presidential election, it benefits the entire media machine to have a close race. I mean, think about it in terms sports. Can you see NBC saying, "Tune in next week when the Chicago Bulls demolish the Cleveland Cavaliers! It's not even going to be close folks; the Bulls are going to wipe the floor with the Cav's faces!"

Of course not. The "closer" it's gonna be -- the more it makes it a "better" game and the more likely you're gonna put it in the 'Can't miss TV' bin.

And unlike sports, there is always one or more teams that we haven't seen before. In 2000, we didn't know how Gore or Bush would perform as president. Bush had a president-Dad, but Gore served as VP. It's like watching a one-on-one game between an NBA player's son who's never been in a real game and some guy who's sat the bench for an NBA team all season. It's hard to judge. So you can hype it up as a close match as much as you want. These are untested players and uncharted territory. But unlike a sports match, the consequences are very serious and very real.

So wouldn't it make sense that the media are going to keep things close for as long as possible in the public's eyes. When Obama gets ahead in the Polls, find another poll that says he's behind. And when McCain is leading, find another poll that shows Obama just edging him out. And when you've led 4 headlines about McCain and Palin gaffes, you've got to balance it out by showing an Obama camp misstep.

YES. It does. It's common sense. And it seems like something we should all be able to agree on. With 55 days left and lots of adspace to fill, the media wants to keep this thing as close as possible. Even if it shouldn't be.